Jokes and explanations aside, this effect is pretty profound, and it gives us a much better outlook than if we only take the racial data into account.

Besides the obvious- that our electorate may stop its general leftward shift thanks to higher conservative birthrates- we see a more hopeful picture for the future of Whites in America. Importantly, there may be White American populations which breed above replacement rate.

Conservative women have 2.08 children on average, and unless there are some populations of highly conservative and fecund Blacks or Hispanics, this must mean that conservative Whites in particular are having a lot of kids. Using party ID as an estimate for the proportion of conservatives who are Black or Hispanic, and assuming that conservative Blacks and Hispanics have around the same birthrates as their respective racial averages, the number of kids per conservative White woman doesn’t really change; this estimate pegs it at 2.09.

I’m imagining White rural populations boiling over into the cities, where the blood of Blacks, Hispanics, White liberals, and so on is mixed and then progressively cut with more White blood over time. Three ingredients are needed for this to take place:

We must pursue policies that increase the already-higher fertility of people living in suburbs and farms and so forth. I actually think that Trump’s childcare plan is a step in the right direction because it cuts taxes for parents instead of sending them money; this means that it disproportionately benefits tax payers.

We must pursue policies that increase population density in cities. Doing so under the guise of combating urban sprawl makes sense.

We must pursue policies that keep nonwhites in these cities.

2 and 3 can overlap substantially; “two birds, one stone” is more elegant than it sounds. My solution is to engage in aggressive urban planning. Create decent quality, low rent, high density apartments in these cities. They’ll be where lower IQ people can afford to live, particularly if we can strip affirmative action and college entrance biases.

Of course, other measures must be taken. We would want to build the Wall, deport all illegals, retain Roe v Wade, and reduce welfare benefits (worth a shot). If we get our jobs back we can build low-fertility communities next to where we put the jobs; with reduced welfare benefits and possibly a smaller black market economy (thanks to the Wall and perhaps racial profiling) there could be even more financial incentive to go where the jobs are than there is now.

I believe that if we line up our geographical and economic stars just so, we can improve our situation going forward. The next thing to do is to create a list of policies that are likely to achieve these specific effects, campaign for them independent of one another and, when possible, do so without rousing accusations of racism. If you campaign for low cost, high density housing for example, you can say that you’re combating urban sprawl, and nobody will know that you’re actually doing a demography scheme.

I don’t know if White genocide was a deliberate plan in the beginning, although I can say with a high degree of confidence that genocide is what motivates Barbara Spectre and others like her. What they didn’t do was to simply kill everyone they didn’t like; far from it, they attempted to slip their scheme under the radar, lying about the demographic implications of the Hart-Celler act for example. It worked. The same can be done in reverse, and I consider this solution more likely to happen, more humane, less expensive, and less messy than deporting, sterilizing, or killing millions of people. At a minimum, these soft-segregation policies will reduce the negative impacts of having these people around. A further advantage to this plan is that we can get started on it today.

That’s just America, though. I believe that Europe has a different path, likely a race war and subsequent mass deportations.

*****

For more unorthodox discussion on philosophy, politics, biology, anthropology, and general tomfoolery from an unapologetic White American perspective, check out our YouTube channel, and if you want to know what we’re like when we’re cranky, check out our Twitter feed.

They had every advantage: the media, the education system, the megadonors, the political machines, and even many Republicans like John McCain and Paul Ryan.

You could attribute it to popular support on Trump’s part, but that’s wrong. His overall voter turnout wasn’t that much larger than Romney’s, and he also didn’t crush Hillary through sheer numbers since the popular vote was effectively a tie.

The monster vote may have been real in the Rust Belt, but it wasn’t a full-on “silent majority” scenario. The two candidates’ support was close enough that Trump could have lost under different circumstances. I believe that, in an act of great folly, the DNC threw this election by accident.

And they did so by manipulating the primaries in Hillary’s favor. To compare Bernie and Hillary as candidates:

Bernie would’ve gotten more votes in the crucial Rust Belt using his stronger positions on trade.

Bernie is less hated than Hillary across the political spectrum. On a related note, he’s an outsider, which is in vogue right now.

Unlike Bernie, Hillary was plagued by nonstop scandals, including the DNC collusion- a problem that the DNC created for their own candidate, with their own hands.

Nominating Hillary caused 1.2 million leftists, mostly former Bernie supporters, to flock to Jill Stein. Stein had such respect for Sanders that she offered to give him her ticket, and so I believe that she would have dropped out and endorsed Sanders; furthermore, I believe that Hillary supporters would have been more willing to vote Sanders than vice versa. It’s possible that this is redundant with point #1.

Nominating Hillary caused rifts between leftists and people who hate corruption; between leftists and people from the Rust Belt; and even between leftists and other leftists.

I could be wrong. Norpoth believes that Trump would have crushed Bernie, and I concede that the guy is a radical. But Bernie seems to have been better off along all of the areas where Clinton failed the hardest.

The DNC wanted an Establishment leftist over a populist leftist. It’s possible that they could’ve won two of the three branches of federal government (President and, subsequently, Supreme Court) with someone they dislike in the Oval Office, but now they have zero of three branches and someone they hate as President. Worse yet: he’s likely to prosecute them and their friends, and he’s likely to deport a million or more potential fraudulent Democratic voters.

On some level, they probably even understand that this will cause American culture to become less liberal as well. Trump’s policies will decrease the number of Hispanic, Arabic, and African second generation immigrants to be born in America, most of whom would have voted Democrat. Trump doing well as President and accomplishing his goals may shift the Overton Window to the right. And by winning the Rust Belt, Trump has flipped one of the last groups of White people who still voted Democrat, and I think that they’re going to continue supporting the new Conservatism if Trump gets them their jobs back.

This is a catastrophic failure for the Left, and they had it coming; things would’ve gone better for them if they weren’t such a cancerous presence in American politics and culture. Expect them to continue shooting their own feet.

*****

For more unorthodox discussion on philosophy, politics, biology, anthropology, and general tomfoolery from an unapologetic White American perspective, check out our YouTube channel, and if you want to know what we’re like when we’re cranky, check out our Twitter feed.

Trump’s presidency is, among other things, a test of predictive power. If you believe that Trump is going to do x, and he does y, then your understanding of the situation was flawed. Remember that. The more and larger flaws you see in your worldview, the worse you will be at making decisions (like voting).

I’m going to throw a few things out there and see if I’m right:

#1: Obama will spend a significant percentage of his remaining time in office taking actions that he believes will protect his allies and policies from the traditional fate of those who cross Trump: “you’re fired.”

#2: If Trump does anything dumb, it will be his advanced age or his sleeping habits that caused it. Not his ideology. This one is shakier because causality is tough to parse out, and also because I don’t expect him to do very many dumb things.

#3: The FBI will charge Hillary Clinton with a crime between January 20 and February 20 of 2017. Don’t expect to hear a peep out of them until Trump is in office- as per #1, Obama would just pardon her, and the FBI are smart enough to know that.

#4: Trump will stop funding and support of the “moderate rebels” (read: terrorists) trying to overthrow Syria. This will prevent a very uncomfortable and unnecessary conflict with Russia.

#5: To make his administration more effective and, in the eyes of normies, credible, Trump will pick moderates, comparatively trustworthy insiders, and guys without iconoclastic personalities for all kinds of positions. I bet that the more honest members of “the establishment” will be crucial to Trump’s administration; contrast that with the idea of bringing in an entire new upper crust. It’s going to be a sort of Hegelian dialectical between Trump and the Establishment, and I predict that the Synthesis will be an effective team.

#6: George Soros and his cronies will act in an extremely counter-productive manner to their own cause. After he failed to prevent Bush’s re-election in 2004, he slinked off and donated a few million bucks to the ACLU, but now he has an actual army of white ants willing and ready to burn down whatever city he tells them to. If he makes a miscalculation and ends up looking like a nuisance, it would severely discredit leftists. And I believe that he or his followers will do exactly that.

All of this leads me to believe that you could build a statistical correlation between percentage of White ancestry and propensity towards voting Republican; at a minimum, this standard would work for Whites (~100%), Cubans (70+%), other Hispanics (~50%), and Blacks (~20%). Better yet, you could build a correlation between autosomal genetic distance from Whites and likelihood of voting Democrat, accounting for tertiary variables like personality differences between races, income, educational attainment, and population density. This is a fancy way of saying that I predict that the more genetically similar you are to White people, the more likely you are to vote Republican (but that there are other factors involved as well).

Prediction #7 is, more specifically, that these effects are going to get even clearer. The Democrats have abandoned poor Whites, young Whites, White women and so forth in order to pursue their racial form of Marxism, finalizing the movement towards Democrats being “the anti-White party.” If they were smart, they’d extend the olive branch and strive for unity and moderation with the goal of winning back these left-leaning White demographics. But I predict that they will eliminate their last vestiges of White support by, as always, doubling down when they are wrong. Specifically, they will riot, they will shame White women for voting Trump, and they will pressure the electoral college to subvert the Presidential election. These acts of hate and desperation, and their failure to admit that their electoral defeat was their own fault, will drive the last remaining White voting blocs to the Republicans.

That’s all the prognostication I’m willing to do, for now. I encourage you to make your own predictions, and see how many come true.

*****

For more unorthodox discussion on philosophy, politics, biology, anthropology, and general tomfoolery from an unapologetic White American perspective, check out our YouTube channel, and if you want to know what we’re like when we’re cranky, check out our Twitter feed.

Clinton beat Trump in the popular vote by a razor thin margin of one million votes, a tiny fraction of the number of dead people and non-US citizens registered to vote. In fact, the number of illegals who vote in Presidential elections may be up to 2.8 million, and during this particular election it was likely 3 million.

What I’m saying is, I doubt we’ll ever know which candidate really got the plurality of all legitimate votes, or in layman speak “won the popular vote.” Particularly since voting is anonymous.

But that won’t stop people from claiming that it was Clinton who won the popular vote, and calling me a conspiracy theorist for pointing out the fact that we don’t know that and probably never will.

*****

For more unorthodox discussion on philosophy, politics, economics, biology, anthropology, human behavior, technology, and general tomfoolery from an unapologetic White American perspective, check out our YouTube channel, and if you want to know what we’re like when we’re cranky, check out our Twitter feed.